I know that the families of those killed in Iraq are in deep pain on account of it, and I don't mean to be understood to be unaware or uncaring of that fact. But in war, you don't and you can't let such things deter the national policy. Not to be hard about it, but each and every one of those who served in the military chose to do so, and they have accepted what used to be called "the soldier's risk".

You consider my point of view to be one of utilitarianism. Perhaps it could be so cast, but what has influenced my thinking more is historical precedent, and I consider how successful military ventures from the time of Rome to the present have been prosecuted. There is a certain universality to successful war fighting. It includes a determination to see the thing through once begun. It includes a clear and achievable goal.

What we are doing in Iraq may or may not have been necessary. I have never been that convinced that Iraq was an immediate threat that needed to be dealt with. Regardless of all that, we have begun this war, and now it is essential that we finish it successfully.

Casualties in war are a given. This is a fact, though certainly not of solace to the families of those killed and maimed. But you cannot change your strategic course once you have set it on account of them. This is especially true in light of the light, and I mean light, casualties we have taken thusfar.

In sharp contrast, Vietnam was a war that might have been won but for the dithering, uncertain policy of the Democrats concerning the war aim in Vietnam, and the impossible position those fools put our military in. The military was never given the ability to fight an offensive war. When one fights a war, one must fight it to win it. To half fight as we did in Vietnam is to lose the war.